7 ms·

This is a good sign. Although I'm sure some information on the internet is unreliable, I've been to plenty of doctors in my life who have made incorrect diagno

This is a good sign. Although I'm sure some information on the internet is unreliable, I've been to plenty of doctors in my life who have made incorrect diagnoses and given me unreliable information too. When doctors and patients have more information more easily available (even if some percentage is incorrect), I can't believe that wouldn't help. The real question is, why aren't all doctors checking online resources like wikipedia in addition to the resources they normally use?

mixmax 17y ago
Yes it is. Here's a quote from the article: "How does Wikipedia fare as a medical reference? Its collaborative, user-generated philosophy generally means that errors are caught and corrected quickly. Several studies, including one examining health information, another probing articles on surgery, and one focusing on drugs, found the online encyclopedia to be almost entirely free of factual errors."
- jerf 17y ago
  What I like about using Wikipedia for "important" stuff is that it contains references to so many things. If you're concerned that someone is misinterpreting a medical paper, well, go follow the reference before you do anything important. Wikipedia doesn't ask for blind trust; if you give it such trust, the fault lies with the truster, not Wikipedia. This doesn't solve every problem (missing references, bad references, entire missing concepts), but, well, those are givens for any reference source, or any written work, really.
  - LogicHoleFlaw 17y ago
    I've used Wikipedia to look up additional info on certain medical conditions family members have. Generally medical articles have extremely conscientious footnotes and citations. It's very easy to check primary sources to ascertain accuracy. Hit up PubMed if you need more info! Encyclopedias have never been considered acceptable authoritative sources. So long as we keep in mind the context and purpose of the resource, I see no problem in doctors using Wikipedia as a convenient high-level overview in their research.
- TrevorJ 17y ago
  The danger would be 4chan, etc, changing info that has potentially life-threatening implications.
  - mixmax 17y ago
    these things tend to be reversed pretty quickly. I have an ongoing feud with a friend of mine where my part of the feud is to refer to him as a juggler as much and publicly as possible (He hates jugglers, and thinks they should all be shot, hence..) As a joke I created a Wikipedia article with his name, and spent some time writing up an entry about the great juggler that he was. The plan was to send it to all of his friends. I submitted the article, composed an e-mail and refreshed the Wikipedia page to make sure it worked. The time it took me to write the e-mail was long enough for some editor to delete the article.
    - TrevorJ 17y ago
      All this is true, however there is still a non-zero risk involved. Especially when human life is involved.
      - freetard 17y ago
        Zero risk doesn't exist.
        TrevorJ 17y ago
        You are correct, which is why I qualified the statement by pointing out the human life factor. If human life is involved, and the risk can be mitigated then it should be. Nothing is risk free, but when you are dealing with something that is irreplaceable, even small reductions in risk are worthy of consideration.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    I wouldn't worry about that. There are no lulz to be had if nobody notices, and wiki vandalism is so easy (and so easily correctable) that posting a wiki alteration on 4chan is usually derided as lame - so much so that some other 4channer will likely revert and alert, since there are more lulz to be had from getting the vandal's IP banned from wikipedia. Further, 4chan is not so amoral as to find incorrect pharmaceutical information lulz-worthy...it's more likely that they'd add the name of someone they didn't like to an article about embarrassing social diseases, eg suggesting Christopher Poole has a raging case of syphilis. I can't quantify this of course, but I'd say the rare but real risks from bad QC and errors in pharma documentation (typos or oversights on dosage level, contraindications, half-life and so on) are a much greater risk than that presented by /b/tards.
psyklic 17y ago
well, one danger is medical companies recommending their drugs directly to consumers. I've heard that consumers often enter medical offices requesting specific drugs which may or may not be best for their condition. I hear that some are very adamant, convinced that a specific drug is what they need.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  That's what you have sugar pills for, the placebo effect will work miracles for these patients.

mixmax 17y ago

Yes it is. Here's a quote from the article: "How does Wikipedia fare as a medical reference? Its collaborative, user-generated philosophy generally means that errors are caught and corrected quickly. Several studies, including one examining health information, another probing articles on surgery, and one focusing on drugs, found the online encyclopedia to be almost entirely free of factual errors."

jerf 17y ago
What I like about using Wikipedia for "important" stuff is that it contains references to so many things. If you're concerned that someone is misinterpreting a medical paper, well, go follow the reference before you do anything important. Wikipedia doesn't ask for blind trust; if you give it such trust, the fault lies with the truster, not Wikipedia. This doesn't solve every problem (missing references, bad references, entire missing concepts), but, well, those are givens for any reference source, or any written work, really.
- LogicHoleFlaw 17y ago
  I've used Wikipedia to look up additional info on certain medical conditions family members have. Generally medical articles have extremely conscientious footnotes and citations. It's very easy to check primary sources to ascertain accuracy. Hit up PubMed if you need more info! Encyclopedias have never been considered acceptable authoritative sources. So long as we keep in mind the context and purpose of the resource, I see no problem in doctors using Wikipedia as a convenient high-level overview in their research.
TrevorJ 17y ago
The danger would be 4chan, etc, changing info that has potentially life-threatening implications.
- mixmax 17y ago
  these things tend to be reversed pretty quickly. I have an ongoing feud with a friend of mine where my part of the feud is to refer to him as a juggler as much and publicly as possible (He hates jugglers, and thinks they should all be shot, hence..) As a joke I created a Wikipedia article with his name, and spent some time writing up an entry about the great juggler that he was. The plan was to send it to all of his friends. I submitted the article, composed an e-mail and refreshed the Wikipedia page to make sure it worked. The time it took me to write the e-mail was long enough for some editor to delete the article.
  - TrevorJ 17y ago
    All this is true, however there is still a non-zero risk involved. Especially when human life is involved.
    - freetard 17y ago
      Zero risk doesn't exist.
      - TrevorJ 17y ago
        You are correct, which is why I qualified the statement by pointing out the human life factor. If human life is involved, and the risk can be mitigated then it should be. Nothing is risk free, but when you are dealing with something that is irreplaceable, even small reductions in risk are worthy of consideration.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  I wouldn't worry about that. There are no lulz to be had if nobody notices, and wiki vandalism is so easy (and so easily correctable) that posting a wiki alteration on 4chan is usually derided as lame - so much so that some other 4channer will likely revert and alert, since there are more lulz to be had from getting the vandal's IP banned from wikipedia. Further, 4chan is not so amoral as to find incorrect pharmaceutical information lulz-worthy...it's more likely that they'd add the name of someone they didn't like to an article about embarrassing social diseases, eg suggesting Christopher Poole has a raging case of syphilis. I can't quantify this of course, but I'd say the rare but real risks from bad QC and errors in pharma documentation (typos or oversights on dosage level, contraindications, half-life and so on) are a much greater risk than that presented by /b/tards.

psyklic 17y ago

well, one danger is medical companies recommending their drugs directly to consumers. I've heard that consumers often enter medical offices requesting specific drugs which may or may not be best for their condition. I hear that some are very adamant, convinced that a specific drug is what they need.

jacquesm 17y ago
That's what you have sugar pills for, the placebo effect will work miracles for these patients.